Here's the place to chat about all things classic. Also includes a feedback forum where you can communicate directly with the editorial team - don't hold back, they'd love to know what they're doing right (or wrong of course!)

So as that reads then: Some newer vehicles become exempt and some that are already exempt will cease to be so, but all of this is to be self declared by the keeper whose P&J's test status is decided at the filling in of some form? In other words, if the seller of that "Series 2" Land Rover which is on eBay, you know, the one with the coil chassis, the S3 or later bulkhead and the later TD engine, one piece doors and a body that to anyone with working eyes is in fact that of a Defender, wishes to declare their vehicle to be a "VHI" then there's no involvement by VOSA, no application of any agency-supplied common sense and more worryingly; no need for anyone to produce actual evidence that their vehicle genuinely has absence of substantial deviations from its factory specification.

The same will doubtless apply to minis, VWs, pretty much any Ford that meets the one criterion: its age and by the way it looks, any vehicle vaguely the same shape as it was at the time of its build.
How about we extend this principle to include self declaration in all things formerly defined in rather less vague, official terms? I'm off to murder someone but don't worry, I shall fill in the appropriate declaration at the post office counter so I can get away with it because I say that a bigger boy did it then ran off, which must be correct - because it's written in plain English - and will save many hours of the legal system's precious time.

I see trouble arising out of this ill-conceived mess! Unless of course the article, to which Rich has provided the link, is in itself inaccurate and so wide of the point as to be meaningless in comparison with the actual rules as they shall be in May! Expect many teething troubles, U turns and edits as we go, this will give rise to absolute mayhem, not least among the already crooked few who taint venues such as eBay with their automotive faery lore and their "Historic" cars made up of a rusty slab of original shell with a brown log book and an illegible sliver of steel claimed to be the location where the factory attached the chassis plate in pre-VIN days.

Common Sense. Born: The dawn of humankind, died: May 2018. May it rest in rusty pieces.

John, you may (or may not!) be right, but I would counter with: does it really matter?

After all, numerically the volume of "dodgy" cars that you are talking about is absolutely miniscule as a % of cars on the road. Even if they are "classics" in a more modern shell etc. they are likely to be used in the same way as genuine classics (usually low mileage), except being actually more modern under the skin likely (generally speaking) to be safer. So you have to ask yourself, even if you are right, how many deaths or serious injuries are likely to be caused by these "dodgy" vehicles? My guess is - none.

I can completely understand the worries that this legislation is going to cause dangerous vehicles to be running around on our roads, but experience from other countries where they already have this sort of legislation indicates that this does not actually happen.

Relax man - as Mark Twain said, "I am an old man and have known a great many worries, but few of them have ever happened".

Some people are like Slinkies - they serve no useful purpose, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them downstairs.

The widespread abuse of the system has always gone on and will continue to do so. I suspect, though, that if the traffic police have a bit of time on their hands and the ANPR shows something a bit iffy as being MoT exempt, they will be tempted to have a closer look.

I have just had an email from the Department for Transport, which reads as follows.

You emailed the Department last Autumn about the forthcoming exemption of Vehicles of Historical Interest from MOT testing; and in particular about the draft guidance on the definition of a ‘substantially changed’ vehicle.

In case you have not heard, the Department published final guidance on our website on 18 December. This followed discussions with stakeholders such as the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs.

You will be interested to see that we have discarded our proposed definition based on a 15% increase in the power/weight ratio and have arrived at a different version.

Yours sincerely

David Pope

I've not had a good look at it but the 15% power to weight ratio idea is dropped, so long as mods weren't done within the last 30 years, they are allowed and in the case of Morris Minors, I think all engine swaps, one A Series for another, of a different size, will be allowed anyway. I'm not sure about an MM getting an A Series. I suppose if an MM (Early side valve car) is just regarded as a Morris Minor, then an A Series became standard equipment but if it's regarded as a separate entity, from the A series cars, it might be open to debate. I'm sure quite a few MMs will have been fitted with A Series engines years ago (And over 30 anyway) but I suspect historical correctness may mean it doesn't happen that often these days?